correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organisms

also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientist

another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experiments

such an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilities

life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence

you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

"If life arose relatively quickly on Earth … then it could be common in theuniverse."[38]

didn't add, life could have always existed, no biogenesis or noabiogenesis

Not easy for life to have existed when the whole planet was a bubbling moltenblob.

True, there must have been a period when life did not exist on thisplanet. OTOH, ours is a second or third generation star and solarsystem. The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

The earth and solar system is known to be 4.5 billion years old.So the universe existed some 9.2 billion years before the earthcoalesced from dead stars matter. Life appear on the earth about 3.8billion years ago, some 1.5 - 2 billion years after it's formation, thenit's not unreasonable to suggest that could life might have appearedduring the 9.2 billion years prior to our solar system formation. Afterarising in a previous generation of stars and solar systems, this lifecould have migrated to the newly formed earth. This is not scientificbecause it's not testable. Nevertheless, why could it not be a realpossibility? There are an number of hypothesis suggestingthat life came from space.

"If life arose relatively quickly on Earth  then it could be common intheuniverse."[38]

didn't add, life could have always existed, no biogenesis or noabiogenesis

Not easy for life to have existed when the whole planet was a bubbling moltenblob.

True, there must have been a period when life did not exist on thisplanet. OTOH, ours is a second or third generation star and solarsystem. The universe is 13.7 billion years old.The earth and solar system is known to be 4.5 billion years old.So the universe existed some 9.2 billion years before the earthcoalesced from dead stars matter. Life appear on the earth about 3.8billion years ago, some 1.5 - 2 billion years after it's formation, thenit's not unreasonable to suggest that could life might have appearedduring the 9.2 billion years prior to our solar system formation. Afterarising in a previous generation of stars and solar systems, this lifecould have migrated to the newly formed earth. This is not scientificbecause it's not testable. Nevertheless, why could it not be a realpossibility? There are an number of hypothesis suggestingthat life came from space.

It makes a whole lot more sense than "goddidit".

--JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dreamup a God superior to themselves. MostGods have the manners and morals of aspoiled child.

"If life arose relatively quickly on Earth Š then it could be common intheuniverse."[38]

didn't add, life could have always existed, no biogenesis or noabiogenesis

Not easy for life to have existed when the whole planet was a bubbling moltenblob.

True, there must have been a period when life did not exist on thisplanet. OTOH, ours is a second or third generation star and solarsystem. The universe is 13.7 billion years old.The earth and solar system is known to be 4.5 billion years old.So the universe existed some 9.2 billion years before the earthcoalesced from dead stars matter. Life appear on the earth about 3.8billion years ago, some 1.5 - 2 billion years after it's formation, thenit's not unreasonable to suggest that could life might have appearedduring the 9.2 billion years prior to our solar system formation. Afterarising in a previous generation of stars and solar systems, this lifecould have migrated to the newly formed earth. This is not scientificbecause it's not testable. Nevertheless, why could it not be a realpossibility? There are an number of hypothesis suggestingthat life came from space.

It makes a whole lot more sense than "goddidit".

There had to be two types of stars whose explosion created thedebris from which the earth and solar system coalesced, asupernova which created heavy matter (above fe.) and a starlower in the main sequence where iron is the final elementcreated within the star explodes. There should be remnants ofthese stars nearby so where are they? There is a point in spacewhere every 26 million years average there is a extinction period;sometimes massive extinctions. Ie Ordovician-Silurian, Permianthisaaic - Jurassic. This is the nemesis (death star) hypothesis.Is it possible this "star" (if it exist) is a remnant of the starexplosion which gave up our solar system?

So the universe existed some 9.2 billion years before the earthcoalesced from dead stars matter. Life appear on the earth about 3.8billion years ago, some 1.5 - 2 billion years after it's formation, then>>> it's not unreasonable to suggest that could life might have appearedduring the 9.2 billion years prior to our solar system formation. Aftearising in a previous generation of stars and solar systems, this life>>> could have migrated to the newly formed earth. This is not scientificbecause it's not testable. Nevertheless, why could it not be a realpossibility? There are an number of hypothesis suggestingthat life came from space.

It makes a whole lot more sense than "goddidit".

here had to be two types of stars whose explosion created thedebris from which the earth and solar system coalesced: asupernova which created heavy matter (above fe.) and a starlower in the main sequence, where iron is the final elementcreated within the star which explodes. There should be remnants ofthese stars, ie a brown star or a neutron star, nearby so,where are they? There is a point in space where every 26 millionyears, average there is a extinction period;sometimes massive extinctions. Ie Ordovician-Silurian, Permianthisaaic-Jurassic. This is the nemesis (death star) hypothesis.Is it possible this "star" (if it exist) is a remnant of the starexplosion which gave up our solar system?

.> >you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,.> >even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and.> >come back, the scientist still made the observer.> this fits with the Copenhagen Interpretation, no observation can be.> made without an observerHence my comment: .".I really don't think that collapse of the wave function .has much relevance here."

.> correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I.> have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even.> non-sentient one celled organismsOK, I'll correct you; that's wrong: amino acids and DNAare two entirely different classes of chemicals. There areno amino acids in DNA; there is no DNA in amino acids.

I didn't specify path

Post by Dalealso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientist

.> another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,.> could have come from biogeneisBeg pardon? Life does not create the chemical elements.Those existed before life, and a number of them were necessaryfor life to exist.

repeatable? what if life always existed and there was no genesis?

Post by Daleand an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilities

.> life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceTrue...but if you want to generalize that to something like"Life always and only comes from life", then you're saying theuniverse is eternal. Among other things.

if I had to make a guess ...

.> you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,.> even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and.> come back, the scientist still made the observerI really don't think that collapse of the wave function hasmuch relevance here.

there is no other explanation, Many Worlds and Transactional failstatistics

.> >.> correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I.> >.> have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even.> >.> non-sentient one celled organisms.> >OK, I'll correct you; that's wrong: amino acids and DNA.> >are two entirely different classes of chemicals. There are

Post by Dalealso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientist

.> another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,.> could have come from biogeneisBeg pardon? Life does not create the chemical elements.Those existed before life, and a number of them were necessaryfor life to exist.

repeatable? what if life always existed and there was no genesis?

Post by Daleand an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilities

.> life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceTrue...but if you want to generalize that to something like"Life always and only comes from life", then you're saying theuniverse is eternal. Among other things.

if I had to make a guess ...

.> you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,.> even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and.> come back, the scientist still made the observerI really don't think that collapse of the wave function hasmuch relevance here.

there is no other explanation, Many Worlds and Transactional failstatistics

.> >.> correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I.> >.> have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even.> >.> non-sentient one celled organisms.> >OK, I'll correct you; that's wrong: amino acids and DNA.> >are two entirely different classes of chemicals. There are

.> correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I.> have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even.> non-sentient one celled organismsOK, I'll correct you; that's wrong: amino acids and DNAare two entirely different classes of chemicals. There areno amino acids in DNA; there is no DNA in amino acids.

I didn't specify path

Post by Dalealso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientist

.> another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,.> could have come from biogeneisBeg pardon? Life does not create the chemical elements.Those existed before life, and a number of them were necessaryfor life to exist.

Post by Daleand an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilities

.> life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceTrue...but if you want to generalize that to something like"Life always and only comes from life", then you're saying theuniverse is eternal. Among other things.

if I had to make a guess ...

.> you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,.> even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and.> come back, the scientist still made the observerI really don't think that collapse of the wave function hasmuch relevance here.

there is no other explanation, Many Worlds and Transactional failstatistics

are you just finding random words in a thesaurus and putting thentogether

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experiments

biogenesis and abiogenesis have to do with the creation of liife andnone of the elements are life so no the elements did not come frombiogenesis, actuallly that word does not even go with that statement.If you were not sure all elements except hydrogen are created eitherin the life of a star or heavier elements are created in the death ofa star.

Post by Dalesuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilities

That just really doesnt make any sense

Post by Dalelife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence

are you saying that a life created the life on this planet?what are you saying exactly

Post by Daleyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

Abiogenesis (Brit.: /ˌeɪˌbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnᵻsᵻs, -ˌbaɪə-, -ˌbiːoʊ-,-ˌbiːə-/ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoiesisor OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising fromnon-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. It is thoughtto have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1[11] billion years ago,and is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments andextrapolation from the genetic information of modern organisms inorder to make reasonable conjectures about what pre-life chemicalreactions may have given rise to a living system.

The study of abiogenesis involves three main types of considerations:the geophysical, the chemical, and the biological, with more recentapproaches attempting a synthesis of all three. Many approachesinvestigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, cameinto existence. It is generally accepted that current life on Earthdescended from an RNA world, although RNA-based life may not havebeen the first life to have existed. The Miller–Urey experiment andsimilar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, basicchemicals of life, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds inconditions intended to be similar to early Earth. Several mechanismsof organic molecule synthesis have been investigated, includinglightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first"hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systemson the early Earth might have provided the precursor moleculesnecessary for self-replication. Complex organic molecules have beenfound in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and thesemolecules may have provided starting material for the developmentof life on Earth.

The panspermia hypothesis suggests that microscopic life wasdistributed by meteoroids, asteroids and other small Solar System bodiesand that life may exist throughout the Universe. It isspeculated that the biochemistry of life may have begun shortlyafter the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, during a habitableepoch when the age of the universe was only 10–17 million years.The panspermia hypothesis answers the question of whence, not howlife came to be; it only postulates the origin of life to a localeoutside the Earth.

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesisor OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising fromnon-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.

Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, nottruth.

It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studiedthrough a combination of laboratory experiments

All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.

and extrapolation from the genetic information

"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a sourcethat has intelligence.

of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures

To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.

about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to aliving system.

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesisor OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising fromnon-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, nottruth.

It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studiedthrough a combination of laboratory experiments

All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.

and extrapolation from the genetic information

"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a sourcethat has intelligence.

of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures

To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.

about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to aliving system.

No way possible apart from fiat creation.

Then where did your God come from?

--If life comes from life, and a god created life, where did this creatorcome from, nothing?Abiogenesis, life from nothing?

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesisor OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising fromnon-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind. <--- note!Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not <--- note!truth.

It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studiedthrough a combination of laboratory experiments

All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.

and extrapolation from the genetic information

"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a sourcethat has intelligence.

of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures

To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.

about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to aliving system.

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesisor OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising fromnon-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind. <--- note!Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not <--- note!truth.

It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studiedthrough a combination of laboratory experiments

All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.

and extrapolation from the genetic information

"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a sourcethat has intelligence.

of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures

To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.

about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to aliving system.

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesisor OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising fromnon-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind. <--- note!Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not <--- note!truth.

It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studiedthrough a combination of laboratory experiments

All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.

and extrapolation from the genetic information

"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a sourcethat has intelligence.

of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures

To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.

about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to aliving system.

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesisor OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising fromnon-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind. <---note!Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not <---note!truth.

It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studiedthrough a combination of laboratory experiments

All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.

and extrapolation from the genetic information

"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a sourcethat has intelligence.

of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures

To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.

about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to aliving system.

No way possible apart from fiat creation.

Then where did your God come from?

He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.

The issue here is who created whom!

Our awesome Creator created thecreation, which includes mankind.

"And God said, "Let Us make man inOur image, after Our likeness; and letthem have dominion over the fish ofthe sea, and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle, and over all theearth and over every creeping thingthat creepeth upon the earth. So Godcreated man in His own image, in theimage of God created He him; maleand female created He them."~ Genesis 1:26,27

Here again, there is no male andfemale evolution since they bothhad to functionally exist togetherat the same time. Thus evolutioncould not have been their origins.

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesisor OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising fromnon-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind. <---note!Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not <---note!truth.

It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studiedthrough a combination of laboratory experiments

All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.

and extrapolation from the genetic information

"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a sourcethat has intelligence.

of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures

To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.

about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to aliving system.

No way possible apart from fiat creation.

Then where did your God come from?

He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.

The issue here is who created whom!

Our awesome Creator created thecreation, which includes mankind."And God said, "Let Us make man inOur image, after Our likeness; and letthem have dominion over the fish ofthe sea, and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle, and over all theearth and over every creeping thingthat creepeth upon the earth. So Godcreated man in His own image, in theimage of God created He him; maleand female created He them."~ Genesis 1:26,27

There is no valid evidence than anything ever written in any documentwas ever written by anything other than just a mere human being.

So we have nothing but your say so, no physical evidence, to supportyour claims.

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesisor OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising fromnon-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind. <---note!Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not<---note!truth.

It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studiedthrough a combination of laboratory experiments

All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.

and extrapolation from the genetic information

"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a sourcethat has intelligence.

of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures

To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.

about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to aliving system.

No way possible apart from fiat creation.

Then where did your God come from?

He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.

The issue here is who created whom!

Our awesome Creator created thecreation, which includes mankind."And God said, "Let Us make man inOur image, after Our likeness; and letthem have dominion over the fish ofthe sea, and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle, and over all theearth and over every creeping thingthat creepeth upon the earth. So Godcreated man in His own image, in theimage of God created He him; maleand female created He them."~ Genesis 1:26,27

There is no valid evidence than anything ever written inany document was ever written by anything other thanjust a mere human being.

"You must understand this at the outset, that no prophecyof scripture arose from an individual's interpretation ofthe truth. No prophecy came because a man wanted it to:Men of God spoke because they were inspired by theHoly Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21

Post by VirgilSo we have nothing but your say so, no physicalevidence, to support your claims.

The fact we are male and female is itself solidevidence, because there is no male and femaleevolution. Since they both had to functionallyexist together at the exact _same_ time. Thusevolution could not possibly have been theirorigins. They were created by our awesomeCreator......GOD

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesisor OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising fromnon-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.<---note!Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not<---note!truth.

It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studiedthrough a combination of laboratory experiments

All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.

and extrapolation from the genetic information

"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a sourcethat has intelligence.

of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures

To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.

about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to aliving system.

No way possible apart from fiat creation.

Then where did your God come from?

He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.

The issue here is who created whom!

Our awesome Creator created thecreation, which includes mankind."And God said, "Let Us make man inOur image, after Our likeness; and letthem have dominion over the fish ofthe sea, and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle, and over all theearth and over every creeping thingthat creepeth upon the earth. So Godcreated man in His own image, in theimage of God created He him; maleand female created He them."~ Genesis 1:26,27

There is no valid evidence than anything ever written inany document was ever written by anything other thanjust a mere human being.

"You must understand this at the outset, that no prophecyof scripture arose from an individual's interpretation ofMen of God spoke because they were inspired by theHoly Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21

Post by VirgilSo we have nothing but your say so, no physicalevidence, to support your claims.

The fact we are male and female is itself solidevidence, because there is no male and femaleevolution. Since they both had to functionallyexist together at the exact _same_ time. Thusevolution could not possibly have been theirorigins. They were created by our awesomeCreator......GOD

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics and probabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesisor OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising fromnon-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.<---note!Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not truth.<---note!

It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studiedthrough a combination of laboratory experiments

All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.

and extrapolation from the genetic information

"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a sourcethat has intelligence.

of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures

To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.

about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to aliving system.

No way possible apart from fiat creation.

Then where did your God come from?

He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.

The issue here is who created whom!

Our awesome Creator created thecreation, which includes mankind."And God said, "Let Us make man inOur image, after Our likeness; and letthem have dominion over the fish ofthe sea, and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle, and over all theearth and over every creeping thingthat creepeth upon the earth. So Godcreated man in His own image, in theimage of God created He him; maleand female created He them."~ Genesis 1:26,27

There is no valid evidence than anything ever written inany document was ever written by anything other thanjust a mere human being.

"You must understand this at the outset, that no prophecyof scripture arose from an individual's interpretation ofMen of God spoke because they were inspired by theHoly Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics and probabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesisor OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising fromnon-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.<---note!Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not truth.<---note!

It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studiedthrough a combination of laboratory experiments

All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.

and extrapolation from the genetic information

"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a sourcethat has intelligence.

of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures

To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.

about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to aliving system.

No way possible apart from fiat creation.

Then where did your God come from?

He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.

The issue here is who created whom!

Our awesome Creator created thecreation, which includes mankind."And God said, "Let Us make man inOur image, after Our likeness; and letthem have dominion over the fish ofthe sea, and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle, and over all theearth and over every creeping thingthat creepeth upon the earth. So Godcreated man in His own image, in theimage of God created He him; maleand female created He them."~ Genesis 1:26,27

There is no valid evidence than anything ever written inany document was ever written by anything other thanjust a mere human being.

"You must understand this at the outset, that no prophecyof scripture arose from an individual's interpretation ofMen of God spoke because they were inspired by theHoly Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the onlything Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientistanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesisismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimentalequation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes awayandcome back, the scientist still made the observer--Dalehttp://www.dalekelly.org

Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesisor OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arisingfromnon-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its ownkind.<---note!Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy,not truth.<---note!

It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studiedthrough a combination of laboratory experiments

All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.

and extrapolation from the genetic information

"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a sourcethat has intelligence.

of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures

To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.

about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to aliving system.

No way possible apart from fiat creation.

Then where did your God come from?

He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.

The issue here is who created whom!

Our awesome Creator created thecreation, which includes mankind."And God said, "Let Us make man inOur image, after Our likeness; and letthem have dominion over the fish ofthe sea, and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle, and over all theearth and over every creeping thingthat creepeth upon the earth. So Godcreated man in His own image, in theimage of God created He him; maleand female created He them."~ Genesis 1:26,27

There is no valid evidence than anything ever written inany document was ever written by anything other thanjust a mere human being.

"You must understand this at the outset, that no prophecyof scripture arose from an individual's interpretation ofMen of God spoke because they were inspired by theHoly Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21

Post by AndrewThe fact we are male and female is itself solidevidence, because there is no male and femaleevolution. Since they both had to functionallyexist together at the exact _same_ time. Thusevolution could not possibly have been theirorigins. They were created by our awesomeCreator......

Actually there are lots of evidences of sex having evolved.

The biological advantages of sexual reproduction are considerable, but aa god would have no use for sexuality itself.

There are species with only one "sex".There are species in which sexual reproduction is apparently optional.There are species with more than two "sexes".

Post by AndrewThe fact we are male and female is itself solidevidence, because there is no male and femaleevolution. Since they both had to functionallyexist together at the exact _same_ time. Thusevolution could not possibly have been theirorigins. They were created by our awesomeCreator......

Actually there are lots of evidences of sex having evolved.

No, both genders must exist together from the first.

Post by VirgilThe biological advantages of sexual reproduction are considerable,

Post by AndrewThe fact we are male and female is itself solidevidence, because there is no male and femaleevolution. Since they both had to functionallyexist together at the exact _same_ time. Thusevolution could not possibly have been theirorigins. They were created by our awesomeCreator......

Actually there are lots of evidences of sex having evolved.

No, both genders must exist together from the first.

WRONG!

The more primitive one-celled life forms have no sexual differentations,nor do any subcellular life forms like viruses.

And there are some quite complex multicellular species which quitesuccessfully reproduce asexually!

Doesn't change the fact that those that have twomust have both genders functioning in existenttogether at the exact same time. Thus evolutioncould *not* possibly have been their origins.

That you do not know how evolution produced sexuality does not prove itdid not happen. Sexualitiy's evolutionary benefits are well know toscience, so if it could have evolved, it should have evolved, and itdid!

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organisms

DNA is not made of amino acids.

Post by Dalealso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientist

The experiments are an attempt to show that life could arisespontaneously in the conditions present on early Earth.

We are never going to see life arise on Earth in such conditions withoutsome kind of human intervention because those conditions no longer existon Earth.

In any case, we're never going to see life arise on Earth when it did,because that was a long time ago. If you're looking for cast iron proofthat it actually arose spontaneously, rather than evidence that it couldhave, you're never going to get it. That does not prevent it from beinga plausible theory.

Post by Daleanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence

Hardly, given that so far attempts to create life have not been successful.

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organisms

DNA is not made of amino acids.

Post by Dalealso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientist

The experiments are an attempt to show that life could arisespontaneously in the conditions present on early Earth.We are never going to see life arise on Earth in such conditions withoutsome kind of human intervention because those conditions no longer existon Earth.In any case, we're never going to see life arise on Earth when it did,because that was a long time ago. If you're looking for cast iron proofthat it actually arose spontaneously, rather than evidence that it couldhave, you're never going to get it.

Have you noticed the fact that you atheists are most likely in the sameposition regarding the proof of God's existence you keep begging for, even asyou deny you're doing what you're doing when you do it? That does not prevent itfrom being a plausible theory.

Post by Daleanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence

Hardly, given that so far attempts to create life have not been successful.Sylvia.

Post by Dalecorrect me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing Ihave heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not evennon-sentient one celled organismsalso, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves thebiogenesis of the scientist

Good point. There is no evidence of abiogenesis associated with this planet,and there never could be.

Post by Daleanother point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis ismade in current experimentssuch an assumption would involve the need for statistics andprobabilitieslife coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidenceyou can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away andcome back, the scientist still made the observer